Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
balerionsteel.

Vegas Odds that a Dragon Survives season 8?

18 posts in this topic

Is there anyone that thinks theres a shot a dragon survives this thing?
Or is it basically inevitable that "the new world" is dragonless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My best guess is that the new world is dragonless in the books (I expect a late book scene will be Jon or Daenerys sacrificing the one surviving dragon as part of a pact with other humans or with the Others at the end of the wars).  In the show I wouldn't put it beyond D&D to have a dragon just roam free at the end, or if they let the dragons die show us where they laid some dragon eggs that'll be gifted to Jon and Daenerys' child.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I could go either way on this. Having both die would certainly make for a sader tale as it would affect one of the protagonists immensely. 

However, part of me sees it as a bit of a cop out ending. If dragons are really supposed to be the metaphor for WMD, then why would they go away? In our world nuclear weapons don’t just disappear. We constantly have to deal and struggle with how we use them and who controls them.

Odd as it is to say, a more realistic ending for me would be one where the new government has to explicitly deal with this question of how the dragons are controlled. 

If there is a Targaryen restoration, does the new government really want to give Targaryen princes dragon eggs? Should they really be the only family controling these beasts? What safeguards should be put in place? If its a return to Aegon’s day what is done to ensure that you don’t have a repeat of the Dance of the Dragons? 

By having them die out it seems you eliminate a whole host of meaty issues the next government would have to deal with. 

Edited by jcmontea

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think the world after the Long Night will be a world with dragons, blood magic and R'hllor's priests. IMO, it will be the price to have the Others returning to their slumber. But for HBO, they may just die in battle, at least one against Viserion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BalerionTheCat said:

I don't think the world after the Long Night will be a world with dragons, blood magic and R'hllor's priests. IMO, it will be the price to have the Others returning to their slumber. But for HBO, they may just die in battle, at least one against Viserion.

Yea very possible. Would certainly copy the Lord of the Rings ending and would give it at least a 50% chance of coming true if not higher. 

But i continue thinking that is a fairy tale ending in many ways because of what I said above about it completely eliminates important questions that would need to be dealt with, questions we have to face and wrestle with in our world every day. 

Also, I would think that this story will end with order in Westeros being re-established. I suppose Westeros could just break up, but that would go against the political evolution we have had here on earth where the trend since the middle ages has been a consolidation of power in the hands of strong national states. 

If it is correct that order will be re-established at the center, than whoever establishes that order will need to have a preponderance of power. Not sure there is anything in universe we have seen that gives that sort of power other than dragons. I don't think its a coincidence in the story that one of the most peaceful times in Westeros was between the crushing of the faith militant uprising and the dance of the dragons. Effectively the pax-draco.

But I suppose the story can end without a strong central state: A weak monarchy that we know will lead to further war sooner than later, or a broken up kingdom we know will lead to war between the kingdoms sooner or later. Or perhaps they accomplish a strong central state in other ways, perhaps by destroying the power of the great houses and giving many of those lands to the crown (e.g. Augustus having direct rule over Egypt) 

What the story cannot end with though is a weak government yet the notion that now we will have stability for the foreseeable future. 

Edited by jcmontea

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think one dragon will survive. Tormund says his and Brienne babies will rule the world and I think this is referring to dan and jons child or children. to do this they will have dragon (s). it is also possible that the coming of dragons may have woken up the others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jcmontea said:

Also, I would think that this story will end with order in Westeros being re-established. I suppose Westeros could just break up, but that would go against the political evolution we have had here on earth where the trend since the middle ages has been a consolidation of power in the hands of strong national states. 

If it is correct that order will be re-established at the center, than whoever establishes that order will need to have a preponderance of power. Not sure there is anything in universe we have seen that gives that sort of power other than dragons. I don't think its a coincidence in the story that one of the most peaceful times in Westeros was between the crushing of the faith militant uprising and the dance of the dragons. Effectively the pax-draco.

But I suppose the story can end without a strong central state: A weak monarchy that we know will lead to further war sooner than later, or a broken up kingdom we know will lead to war between the kingdoms sooner or later. Or perhaps they accomplish a strong central state in other ways, perhaps by destroying the power of the great houses and giving many of those lands to the crown (e.g. Augustus having direct rule over Egypt) 

What the story cannot end with though is a weak government yet the notion that now we will have stability for the foreseeable future. 

Agree, except for dragons role.

The important question remains, and has to be dealt with. After all the deads and the suffering of the survivors. How to insure the next king's son or grandson will not be another Aerys or Ramsey or Joffrey? Obviously, having dragons is not the answer. I doubt "Small Councils" or democracy will be the solution (it led to Cleon the Butcher King). Fragmenting the power is war. Unity is peace. But it needs an exceptional ruler, with common acceptation and belief in his integrity by everyone. Of course, there will always be ambitious men, sowing discontent. But with general acceptation you can deter rebellion. And mobilize armies if necessary. The Starks in the North were better at it than most. But the only long term solution I see, to apply to a larger extent than the North, is a new Great Empire of the Dawn, with a long-living emperor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, BalerionTheCat said:

Agree, except for dragons role.

The important question remains, and has to be dealt with. After all the deads and the suffering of the survivors. How to insure the next king's son or grandson will not be another Aerys or Ramsey or Joffrey? Obviously, having dragons is not the answer. I doubt "Small Councils" or democracy will be the solution (it led to Cleon the Butcher King). Fragmenting the power is war. Unity is peace. But it needs an exceptional ruler, with common acceptation and belief in his integrity by everyone. Of course, there will always be ambitious men, sowing discontent. But with general acceptation you can deter rebellion. And mobilize armies if necessary. The Starks in the North were better at it than most. But the only long term solution I see, to apply to a larger extent than the North, is a new Great Empire of the Dawn, with a long-living emperor.

I guess I think there are more questions that need to be resolved than just how to ensure a peaceful succession and what to do when you have a bad ruler. That is an important question that either needs to be resolved or made clear its unresolved and could be an issue later on. 

I think there is fundamentally a structure of power issue in Westeros. The crown is weak. The only lands it directly has are the crownlands and Kings Landing which don’t provide enough resources to effectively impose its will over the land. It does not have a monopoly on the use of force. The other great houses can easily team up and overwhelm the crown. The only time in its history when the crown was strong enough to be the Hobesian Leviathan needed to ensure order was when it controlled dragons. 

In our history these problems were resolved in part through the rise of cities which gave the crown access to a tax base that did not depend on the landed nobility so states were able to centralize and gradually exert a monopoly on the use of force. Westeros seems a bit far off as there are only four cities in the realm and three of them own fealty to great houses and not directly to the crown. 

I think that structure of power issue is way worse than whether we have a bad ruler. Take Joffrey. As bad as he was, the destruction caused by the war for the five kings was way worse. The small folk and the people of the land would have been much better off had Robb, Ned, Stannis and Renley just accepted Joffrey’s succession. As bad as Aerys was, he killed individuals. The war to unseat him killed thousands of individuals. 

If war fundamentally is the problem that the series is highlighting, then the only way to solve that - assuming its solved - is through Hobbs Leviathan that makes internal warfare much more difficult since the state establishes a monopoly on the use of force. I think that issue needs to be addressed in order for any ending to be realistic. Adressed meaning this is how we are going to solve it or we can’t solve it so we know at some point civil war will return. 

General acceptation seems like a very short term answer that will last at most a generation or so unless the underlying power imbalance is addressed. But maybe that becomes the ending. One where people accept whatever new monarchy but we know the situation is fundamentally unstable and short term.

Edited by jcmontea

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, jcmontea said:

General acceptation seems like a very short term answer that will last at most a generation or so unless the underlying power imbalance is addressed. But maybe that becomes the ending. One where people accept whatever new monarchy but we know the situation is fundamentally unstable and short term.

I don't like the idea of an Aerys or a Ramsey with dragons. I don't like the idea of giving unlimited power to one guy or family. So that any bad he is, there will not be rebellion and war. IMO, power is not the solution. After all it evidenced of 8000 years of ambitions and hubris, the story must address the fate of the following generations. So why my belief in the GEoD. Who only lasted because of its ruler.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, BalerionTheCat said:

I don't like the idea of an Aerys or a Ramsey with dragons. I don't like the idea of giving unlimited power to one guy or family. So that any bad he is, there will not be rebellion and war. IMO, power is not the solution. After all it evidenced of 8000 years of ambitions and hubris, the story must address the fate of the following generations. So why my belief in the GEoD. Who only lasted because of its ruler.

Well. You may not like the idea, but I think its historically accurate to say that order comes about because someone imposes order. For someone to impose order they need to have overwhelming power. I don’t think that is a sufficient  condition for order but i think its a necessary one. 

If the whole stability of the country comes down to one person or ruler being good or noble, than that order is built on sand that will wash away with the next tide. 

Regarding a Ramsey or an Aerys with Dragons, honestly i am not sure that is worse than disorder and war. Assad in Syria for all intents and purposes had dragons with his air force. Were the people of Syria better off before the civil war or after? Ramsey is a bit of a unique case since he would probably blow people up with his air force for sport, but that is an extreme outlier case and not sure it makes sense to solve for that outlier by increasing the odds of civil war and disorder.

GRRM said it best: 

George R.R. Martin attended the Guadalajara International Book Fair in December 2016, and he was asked who “deserved” to sit on the Iron Throne. “I don’t know that ‘deserve’ is really an operative word. The Iron Throne doesn’t necessarily go to who deserves it, but to who has the power to take and to hold it.

 

This whole series has been about power. It would be a cheat in my view if the end skirts the power issue by having some fairy tale ending where we have peace and stability due to some long living emperor. 

So they at least have to explore the power that allows whoever sits the throne at the end to win it and how whatever new regime established will have the power to maintain itself. And hopefully give the audience enough to understand and speculate just how stable the new regime will be. 

Edited by jcmontea

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, BalerionTheCat said:

I don't like the idea of an Aerys or a Ramsey with dragons. I don't like the idea of giving unlimited power to one guy or family. So that any bad he is, there will not be rebellion and war. IMO, power is not the solution. After all it evidenced of 8000 years of ambitions and hubris, the story must address the fate of the following generations. So why my belief in the GEoD. Who only lasted because of its ruler.

This is ignoring Westorsi history for centuries. Think of what the country was before the conquest . 7 kingdoms constantly at war with eachother for power and lands. "It was the dragons we knelt to, and now the dragons were dead". It wasn't until the power of dragons brought those in power into check that there were some periods of peace and prosperity, and laws decreed by johaerys for the betterment of those in poverty. Much of what Aegon V wanted to acheieve for the btterment of teh realm, to "Break the wheel" of the nobility's power was hindered because he didnt have the dragons to force the world to change he was limited by what could be bargained for politically. It brought about hsi demise. Granted a dragon being in the wrong hands could be awful like maegor but as long as there are other dragons for trhose better to depose them it is wholly better from what we have seen. A terrible lord coming to power ina magicless world could be far more dangerous and totalitarian.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, jcmontea said:

Well. You may not like the idea, but I think its historically accurate to say that order comes about because someone imposes order. For someone to impose order they need to have overwhelming power. I don’t think that is a sufficient  condition for order but i think its a necessary one.

 

I don't disagree and I don't dislike the idea of "someone imposing order". The problem is selecting this person. Possessing dragons didn't help Westeros stability. It didn't prevent Maegor facing rebellions. It didn't prevent the Dance of Dragons where the Targaryens lost their dragons barely 100 years after gaining power over the 7K.

22 hours ago, jcmontea said:

Regarding a Ramsey or an Aerys with Dragons, honestly i am not sure that is worse than disorder and war. Assad in Syria for all intents and purposes had dragons with his air force. Were the people of Syria better off before the civil war or after?

Giving full power to someone to deter rebellion, even if this someone is Ramsey, is an horror. This is negating the purpose of people laboring for a better world, Jon Snow, the Starks and those "fighting for the Ned's little girl", Davos, Sam, Maester Aemon and other from the NW. This is the abolition of good and evil for the whims of someone. After one Ramsey, no one will remember what is decency. Then you will have a Ramsey power 2. This will be 1984, this will be a nazi Reich for millennia, the abolition of the will to think. IMHO, this is not GRRM's story.

I agree our world has no solution to this problem. But this is fantasy and GRRM is the god of his world.

22 hours ago, jcmontea said:

George R.R. Martin attended the Guadalajara International Book Fair in December 2016, and he was asked who “deserved” to sit on the Iron Throne. “I don’t know that ‘deserve’ is really an operative word. The Iron Throne doesn’t necessarily go to who deserves it, but to who has the power to take and to hold it.

IMO, the IT is cursed. It has been built with Fire and Blood. It hurts or destroys most everyone sitting on it. IMO, it will end with the LN.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, BalerionTheCat said:

IMO, the IT is cursed. It has been built with Fire and Blood. It hurts or destroys most everyone sitting on it. IMO, it will end with the LN.

Agreed. I wouldn't be surprised if the IT is destroyed at some point during S8. 

Tyrion mentioned to Daenerys that "Aegon built the wheel" that she intends to break.
He also made the Iron Throne, so in a way it would be poetic if Dany ends up destroying the throne when she breaks the wheel.
With that said, the Iron Throne may also be destroyed if Cersei blows up the Red Keep and/or Kings Landing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, MinscS2 said:

Agreed. I wouldn't be surprised if the IT is destroyed at some point during S8. 

Tyrion mentioned to Daenerys that "Aegon built the wheel" that she intends to break.
He also made the Iron Throne, so in a way it would be poetic if Dany ends up destroying the throne when she breaks the wheel.
With that said, the Iron Throne may also be destroyed if Cersei blows up the Red Keep and/or Kings Landing.

I wouldn’t be surprised either. But what does that even mean? You can blow up the chair. Maybe they get rid of it so they can have two nice thrones for the King and Queen to sit on. But what do you think will legitimatley change? 

 

52 minutes ago, BalerionTheCat said:

I don't disagree and I don't dislike the idea of "someone imposing order". The problem is selecting this person. Possessing dragons didn't help Westeros stability. It didn't prevent Maegor facing rebellions. It didn't prevent the Dance of Dragons where the Targaryens lost their dragons barely 100 years after gaining power over the 7K.

Giving full power to someone to deter rebellion, even if this someone is Ramsey, is an horror. This is negating the purpose of people laboring for a better world, Jon Snow, the Starks and those "fighting for the Ned's little girl", Davos, Sam, Maester Aemon and other from the NW. This is the abolition of good and evil for the whims of someone. After one Ramsey, no one will remember what is decency. Then you will have a Ramsey power 2. This will be 1984, this will be a nazi Reich for millennia, the abolition of the will to think. IMHO, this is not GRRM's story.

I agree our world has no solution to this problem. But this is fantasy and GRRM is the god of his world.

IMO, the IT is cursed. It has been built with Fire and Blood. It hurts or destroys most everyone sitting on it. IMO, it will end with the LN.

This is not me predicting anything and more just talking. But I think it would be trully silly if the story goes with the idea the iron throne is cursed. To me that would trully be fairy tale stuff. 

The Iron Throne is just a chair a symbol for the competition for power. That competition for power never goes away. It always continues. In our day the only difference is we have done a better job establishing rules people have agreed to abdide by in that competition and the competition is now done by mostly peaceful means, at least in the developed world. 

If your going to do an ending that ignores power dynamics, than that would be super disappointing as this series up until now has done a job of adhering to political realism. I think there will be some reform, but whatever reform there is needs to be believable. And the most important thing that needs to be reformed is the power of the nobility. Its a joke that a purely family dispute arising from a kid getting thrown out the window spirals into a continent wide war. 

How didn’t possesing dragons help westeros stablity? I may be doing the math wrong, but i only count one major uprising post conquest before the Dance - the faith militant uprising. And i count more than 7 wars after the Dance. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess thinking about it some more, what i really want to see is an ending that adheres to the political realism the novels and show have exhibited up until this point. 

If we are going to get an ending where the system is trully reformed, than the winners need to end up with the power to impose that new system. Throughout the novels the main force for status quo has been the feudal aristocratic system. Aegon V tried to make it more just but failed. If the new rulers suceed than it should be clear why they were succesful and able to impose their new system. And it should be clear that whatever system is developed, the competition for power - i.e. the game of thrones - will continue because humans are humans just hopefully that competition will be done more humanely. 

If the victors end up so beaten then they don’t have a lot of power, then there shoudn’t really be a big reformist ending. 

I don’t think its realistic to have an ending where the victors armies are destroyed and they have no Dragons yet they somehow magically are able to put in place a new system... because peope are all of a sudden good and nobel and it works because people are good and nobel. 

Edited by jcmontea

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, jcmontea said:

If your going to do an ending that ignores power dynamics, than that would be super disappointing as this series up until now has done a job of adhering to political realism.

I only mean GRRM has made a world worse than ours. And I would be disappointed if the story was finishing on the same dynamic as it is now. Daenerys tried and failed to install a council for Astapor. I don't believe, for this world, in the good will of men. Not on the long term anyway.

This is a fantasy story. Even if it has rather good political mechanics. Much, much better the books than the show IMO. The story has legends and the Others to provide a better ending than the narrow sighted Kinglanders can foresee. GRRM may have another ending in mind, but I would feel enough disappointment to lose any liking in the story, if the ending was unsatisfactory, after what GRRM made me hope with Jon.

11 minutes ago, jcmontea said:

I guess thinking about it some more, what i really want to see is an ending that adheres to the political realism the novels and show have exhibited up until this point.

I guess it is my background of loving fantasy stories.:)
But no, I don't want a silly fairy tale ending.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/24/2017 at 8:43 PM, jcmontea said:

Yea very possible. Would certainly copy the Lord of the Rings ending and would give it at least a 50% chance of coming true if not higher. 

But i continue thinking that is a fairy tale ending in many ways because of what I said above about it completely eliminates important questions that would need to be dealt with, questions we have to face and wrestle with in our world every day. 

 

To be honest it feels like the show is heading towards a fairy tale ending, regardless. Two heroes ride into the field atop their dragon mounts in to fight a rather boring cataclysmic event. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Фейсал said:

To be honest it feels like the show is heading towards a fairy tale ending, regardless. Two heroes ride into the field atop their dragon mounts in to fight a rather boring cataclysmic event. 

In a way yea but I still think there is a crucial distinction between that and what I am talking about. 

Two heroes riding atop dragons to fight the white walkers has been set up since season 1/ book 1. Any close reading/ viewing of either always suggested this as a distinct possibility. 

however, what has also been established since season 1/ book 1 is the political realism of the world. as GRRM said the video I attached, the iron throne doesn't go to who deserves it. it goes to who has the power to take and hold it. 

what I don't think can happen at this late hour is give us an ending that does not take into account and pay full respect to how important power is when it comes to politics and the meaty difficult issues the new order will have to face. if there is going to be order and reform, the victors have to have the power to impose it otherwise there shouldn't be order and reform and we should get a sense for what exactly their policy will be and the challenges they will face implementing it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0